Update: In discussing this with crazyinsomniac
and toma, I came to see the errors of my ways. :) People
on perlmonks shouldn't have their code transferred to CPAN
at someone else's decision. If one wants his or her code to
be available in that central repository, one can upload to
CPAN. Perhaps it would be better not to create a structure
for doing so. If, on the other hand, the majority opinion is
otherwise, I think that in addition to the points I made
below, the original author of the code should have a say in
whether or not the code is shared on CPAN.

Original message:princepawn makes some valid points, as does everybody in this
thread, particularly tilly in this reply. I think
that one of the important word's in princepawn's original
is "relationship," though.

Perhaps if perlmonks is willing to do some work to
create this relationship, CPAN would be willing to unbend
enough to create a special category for perlmonks' code. That
is, an area in which it is understood that:

The available code is, at best, beta quality.

Documentation may be minimal or non-existent.

The code is neither supported nor maintained.

Our end of the bargain might be to create a special group
of code reviewers whose specific task is to review code
posted to perlmonks, and decide which pieces are of such
substantive nature that they should be included in CPAN::perlmonks
(or whatever). Included in such a task might be editing of
code to include later suggestions and fixes from the thread
in which the code was originally posted. The detail of that
process can be worked out by consensus (ie, how many reviewers,
how many votes from same required to move to CPAN, process
for amending the code, etc.).

Of course, the main barrier to this is that adding such a
review process will be a burden on vroom, but those who
think that a relationship with CPAN will be useful should,
IMO, be willing to help with implementing this.